Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: lf-lists@mattcorallo.com
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:15:10 -0400
Message-Id: <A26FA2BC-50E5-4635-95E4-56AAA969C9DA@mattcorallo.com>
References: <20200821023647.7eat4goqqrtaqnna@erisian.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <20200821023647.7eat4goqqrtaqnna@erisian.com.au>
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Generalizing feature negotiation when new p2p
	connections are setup
Precedence: list

Sure, we could do a new message for negotiation, but there doesn=E2=80=99t s=
eem to be a lot of reason for it - using the same namespace for negotiation s=
eems fine too. In any case, this is one of those things that doesn=E2=80=99t=
 matter in the slightest, and if one person volunteers to write a BIP and co=
de, no reason they shouldn=E2=80=99t just decide and be allowed to run with i=
t. Rough consensus and running code, as it were :)

Matt


> On Aug 20, 2020, at 22:37, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@list=
s.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
> =EF=BB=BFOn Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 03:28:41PM -0400, Suhas Daftuar via bitco=
in-dev wrote:
>> In thinking about the mechanism used there, I thought it would be helpful=
 to
>> codify in a BIP the idea that Bitcoin network clients should ignore unkno=
wn
>> messages received before a VERACK.  A draft of my proposal is available h=
ere
>> [2].
>=20
> Rather than allowing arbitrary messages, maybe it would make sense to
> have a specific feature negotiation message, eg:
>=20
>  VERSION ...
>  FEATURE wtxidrelay
>  FEATURE packagerelay
>  VERACK
>=20
> with the behaviour being that it's valid only between VERSION and VERACK,
> and it takes a length-prefixed-string giving the feature name, optional
> additional data, and if the feature name isn't recognised the message
> is ignored.
>=20
> If we were to support a "polite disconnect" feature like Jeremy suggested,=

> it might be easier to do that for a generic FEATURE message, than
> reimplement it for the message proposed by each new feature.
>=20
> Cheers,
> aj
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev